HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

MartinHafer It is very interesting how history actually changes over time. In other words, the same people and incidents can be seen VERY differently depending on when they are discussed in history books or portrayed on film. During the 1910s-40s, the Confederacy and Andrew Johnson were seen in a much more favorable light than they are today. Back in 1942, he was seen, generally, as an able president who was persecuted by Congress. In 1866 and today, he was seen mostly as a tactless obstructionist who did everything he could to prevent blacks from receiving their rights as citizens. Because of this, I doubt if you'll seen any sort of favorable film about the man for the foreseeable future.So on to the film. The production values are very nice--with fine acting and direction--just as you'd expect from MGM. Much of the film was NOT about Johnson's presidency--and this portion it generally got right. His wife did teach his to read and write and his path from local office to the Presidency was generally on target. However, when it came to his presidency, it only once made a comment about Johnson's ill-temper. For the most part, he's shown as a reasonable man who is besieged by an evil Congress. This is far from the case--as I mentioned above. And, Thaddeus Stevens and his friends were mostly caricatures of evil--which is also incorrect. Likewise, Johnson never actually addressed the Senate during his impeachment proceedings--this is pure fiction. Bkoganbing from Buffalo hit it on the head with his review as to the many inaccuracies of the film.What you're left with is a film that is entertainment but just wrong in too many cases to be taken seriously.

John T. Ryan AMONG THE VARIOUS categories of motion picture, the biography or biopic is certainly one of the most interesting, popular and even educational; at least to a certain extent. While we certainly can learn a lot about a historical figure via the movie route, we must always remember that any dramatization is just that; being an artificial recreation of occurrences that had taken place, any or all of which are influenced by the beliefs and attitudes of the films producers, writers and director. In short, there is at least some degree of "slanting" or, as they say on THE O'REILLY FACTOR, "spin." CONSEQUENTLY, ALTHOUGH WE may enjoy Errol Flynn's portrayal of the quite flamboyant George Armstrong Custer in THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON (Warner Brothers, 1942); we mustn't let the story end with "THE END" of the picture. Consulting some historical sources would help to sort out just what is History and what's strictly Hollywood; would certainly seem to be a good suggestion at the very least.SO, WE KNOW that there was at least some degree of fictionalizing and abridgment of actual occurrences. This shouldn't detract from our enjoyment and appreciation of the movies; for that is truly their main function, to entertain and provide a little escapism from the trials and tribulations of everyday life.HOWEVER, WITHOUT LOSING sight of the story unfolding in front of the audience. We at once are obliged to take in all of the unfolding scenario and at the same time sort out what is obvious flight of fanciful fluff. (How's that for use of Alliteration, Schultz?) IN COMPARISON TO many other historical figures, this is probably the only treatment of the life of Andrew Johnson, the man who was Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Vice President and the man who succeeded Abe; following his assassination in April of 1865. In contrast, how many actors have portrayed George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and even Jefferson Davis? THERE ARE SEVERAL facts that we definitely came away with after viewing the film. That is that Mr. Andrew Johnson, like Abe Lincoln himself, came from the most humble of environs. Through his hard work and persistence, he managed to climb the economic ladder working as a tailor in his adopted Tennessee town.WE ALSO LEARN that he was a fugitive from justice in South Carplina. He was, you see, as an 'apprentice' tailor, he was an Indentured Servant to some established master tailor. What is an "Indentured Servant", you may well be asking; for it seems that the term has been assigned to etymological obscurity in today's Politically Correct America.INDENTURED SERVITUDE WAS a form of slavery, in which the worker is bound to a master for a certain period of years; during which he will work for no compensation, other than room and board. Although we hear very little about it today, it was a common practice in those antebellum years; in both slave and free states and territories. In short, it was a sort of "Slavery with term limits." WE ALSO LEARN that Andrew Johnson was a true democrat (small D)in the mold of an Andrew Jackson; being a firm believer in the right to vote for all. This during a time in the 1830's when one had to be a property owner, white and a male to exercise his franchise.FROM THE NARRATIVE on screen, we also learn that was a Southerner, he was most definitely anti-slavery, a Union Loyalist and a fiercely loyal man to his constituents and benefactors, such as Mr. Lincoln. His was such a disposition as to lead to his resignation from the United States Senate and enlistment in the Union Army; leading to his a distinguishing record of service in the War Between the States.DUE TO ALL of these fine qualities, President Lincoln chose Johnson as his running mate on the "National Union" (reallyRepublican) ticket in the Presidential Election in the Year of Our Lord, 1864. Johnson's complete and undivided loyalty to the Union, his championing of the "little guy" and his quite understandable hatred for the institution of slavery, in whatever form.PERHAPS IN FOLLOWING in the trail blazed by Frank Capra in MR.SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (Columbia, 1939), the production team designed a most impressive and realistic replica of the Senate Chamber. They followed up that with a the staging of a most impressive Impeachment and Trial of President Andrew Johnson before the House of Representatives and the Senate; in which Johnson Prevailed by the slimmest of margins in one (1) vote.ALTHOUGH THERE WERE certain liberties taken (such as the President's appearing before the Senate during the trial, which he did not do), the dialog contained some of the very best crafted exchanges; which were very much in keeping with Historical Fact. The production featured a huge number of actors; which also helped in recreating a the teaming minions of the Nation's Capital in that time immediately following the end of hostilities in the Civil War. THE FILM ALSO gives Mr. Johnson's reputation as a drunkard with the offering the reason for his inebriation as being his medicinal use of brandy for a cold or flu on an empty stomach. Well, maybe so, maybe not.THE STORY ALSO gives credit to Andrew Johnson as being the right guy to implement Abraham Lincoln's plan for universal amnesty toward all who participated in the war on the side of the secessionist states. But alas, Johnson wasn't in the strong enough political position th see all of this through to a satisfactory conclusion. The "Radical Republicans, headed up by Congressman Stevens (Lionel Barrymore), prevailed; making the approximately 20 years of Reconstruction a time of exacting a punishment toward the formed Southern Aristocracy.

marcusman48 The post-Civil War period of Reconstruction (1865-1877) has always been one of the most controversial periods of American history; to some extent, it remains so today. At its core was the question of whether federal or state authority was to be paramount; variations on this basic argument continue to ring out in modern-day America. Yet this question has come to be overshadowed by an even more vexing problem: the lack of consensus on Reconstruction's basic morality as well as its constitutionality. Whenever Reconstruction is discussed today, a very prickly quandary must be raised: were the Radical Republicans in the House of Representatives really sympathetic to the civil rights of the freed slaves, or did they only desire to wreak vengeance upon the ex-Confederates in the South? Up until about the mid-1950s, most historians proposed the latter view. It is therefore something of a credit to William Dieterle, the director of this 1942 movie, that he broke somewhat with what was then conventional wisdom. Whereas the contemporary custom would have been to paint the Radical Republicans (and Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in particular) as deranged and villainous, this film shows some restraint in condemning their actions and acknowledges the noble motives behind them. At the same time, Dieterle clearly rejects the late-20th/early-21st century portrait of President Andrew Johnson as bitter, raging white supremacist.True, both Johnson's and Stevens's less positive traits are played up: Johnson's alcoholism and violent temper, Stevens's smug pomposity. Yet both men come across ultimately as admirable, if only for the iron force of their wills in trying to achieve what each of them believed to be just - goals that happened to be mutually exclusive. They both allow their stubbornness and self-righteousness to drive them at each other's throats.Van Heflin is commanding as the President, while Lionel Barrymore manages to mine some humanity from the crusty Stevens. Best of all, perhaps, is the utterly convincing makeup used to "age" Andrew Johnson and his wife Eliza.

olddiscs Never heard of this film until yesterday 7/15/03..and I am a film buff Thanks agaim to TCM... not sure of the historical 100 % accuracy but the main story is history: re: Andrew Johnsons Impeachment /came up during the Clinton impeachment trial... never knew this was filmed.. Van Heflin is brilliant..as the maligned president... as is the rest of the cast...Lionel Barrymore is especially excellent as he hams up the screen. Missed the first few minutes..cant wait till TCM schedules again!! Lost in the shuffle of great films released in late 30s early 40s ! Not to be missed